Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!watdragon!akwright
From: akwright@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Andrew K. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: first class functions (opps)
Message-ID: <13638@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Date: 7 May 89 15:55:59 GMT
References: <10253@orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> <2400023@otter.hpl.hp.com> <451@sdti.SDTI.COM>
Reply-To: akwright@waterloo.edu (Andrew K. Wright)
Organization: U. of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 16

In article <451@sdti.SDTI.COM> turner@sdti.UUCP (0006-Prescott K. Turner, Jr.) writes:
>I'm somewhat familiar with Scheme's "first-class" functions, and like them.
>But isn't it false advertising to claim first-class functions unless you
>can compare functions for equality just like other types?

Why?  What is so special about the equality operation over any
other operation that it should take part in defining "first-class" functions?
What about assignment?  Multiplication?  Addition?  Composition?

A language has first-class functions if any function can be passed
as a parameter or returned as a result.  If the language provides
an equality operation for functions, or an assignment operation,
this is an independent issue.

Andrew K. Wright      akwright@waterloo.edu
CS Dept., University of Waterloo, Ont., Canada.